Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Truman's Grandson Letter To President Obama: "He was told desegregation would destroy the Army."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 01:02 PM
Original message
Truman's Grandson Letter To President Obama: "He was told desegregation would destroy the Army."
Edited on Sat May-08-10 01:03 PM by kpete
Truman's Grandson: "He was told desegregation would destroy the Army."
by Clarknt67
Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:54:44 AM PDT

President Harry Truman’s 126th birthday is, today, Saturday, May 8, 2010.

Today's Letter: "It was not easy, he was told, it would destroy the Army."

Right: President Truman holding author Clifton Truman Daniel



May 7, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Tomorrow, my family and I will mark the 126th anniversary of my grandfather President Harry Truman’s birthday. There are many reasons we celebrate his life and contributions to our nation, but in particular we are proud of his decision to desegregate the U.S. Armed Forces in July 1948, which paved the way for future civil rights advancements.

It was not easy. He faced fierce opposition from inside and outside the military. Many, including Army Chief of Staff Gen. Omar Bradley, argued that mixing black and white soldiers would destroy the Army.

My grandfather, however, was appalled that African-American service members had been beaten and lynched upon their return home from fighting in World War II. They had risked their lives to defend our nation, but were denied the full rights and responsibilities of American citizenship. Implementation of his order to desegregate wasn’t easy, but it made our military stronger and our nation a brighter beacon of democracy.

There are strong parallels between the desegregation of the military and the debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law that mandates the firing of a service member based solely on his or her sexual orientation. Opponents argue that allowing openly gay and lesbian service members to serve alongside their heterosexual comrades will endanger discipline and morale.

While I have no idea where my grandfather would stand on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I do know that he admired service and sacrifice. An estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coastguardsmen are willingly risking their lives to defend our nation, despite being treated as second class citizens.

I would hope that my grandfather would want his openly gay great-granddaughter and others like her to have the opportunity to serve the country they love with dignity and integrity.

Mr. President, as you have said many times, including in your State of the Union Address earlier this year, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is the right thing to do. This year is the right time to do it.

I commend you for your commitment and hope the example of my grandfather, Harry Truman, will help you lead with the same courage and conviction to ensure the "equality of treatment and opportunity for all who serve our nation’s defense.”

Respectfully,

Clifton Truman Daniel



more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/8/864690/-Trumans-Grandson:-He-was-told-desegregation-would-destroy-the-Army.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. He knew it wouldn't because FDR had actually started integrating the military
and just did not announce it.

There are interesting memoranda between FDR and the Sec. of the Navy about it and how it wasn't generating problems or complaints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMightyFavog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow. Bradley said that?
I've lost a lot of respect for Omar Bradley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-08-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. No, not really. Bradley wasn't opposed to integration per se.
Edited on Sat May-08-10 03:55 PM by sarge43
He advocated a 'take it slow' approach, well aware the white bigots, especially the officer corps was which predominating Southerns, not African Americans, would cause trouble and they did. Daniel unfairly quoted him out of context, his own words and the mind set of the country and particularly the Army of the time. We tend to forget how virulent the racism was during that time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classysassy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
4.  "Take it slow"
means don't change the status quo will remain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'd call it be careful and realistic.
One more time, Bradley wasn't opposed to integration, but being a smart, humane, practical man he could guess what would happen and it did. Unlike MacArthur or Patton, he gave a damn about the troops which is why they loved him.

Having gone through the integration of service women mid seventies, I've seen what happens when a newbie one striper is thrown into a unit and/or barracks that's full of people who at best don't want him/her there and at worst hate him/her.

Racial integration was stuck in status quo until Nam. The du jure segregation was over or at least wall papered; the de facto was alive and well. The areas that mattered - promotions and choice assignments were hands on cherry picked by - wait for it - white officers. Were all white officer bigots? No of course not, but they, like the rest of us, tended to favor their own.

Bradley also pointed out the obvious - as long as the civilian society was segregated, the military would be, if not in name, in fact.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC